Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Consistent Explanations in the Face of Model Indeterminacy via Ensembling

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2306.06193 v2 pith:UNBRJVQ7 submitted 2023-06-09 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CY

classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CY
keywords explanationsmodelsensembleindeterminacymodelconsistentefficientlyensembling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

This work addresses the challenge of providing consistent explanations for predictive models in the presence of model indeterminacy, which arises due to the existence of multiple (nearly) equally well-performing models for a given dataset and task. Despite their similar performance, such models often exhibit inconsistent or even contradictory explanations for their predictions, posing challenges to end users who rely on these models to make critical decisions. Recognizing this issue, we introduce ensemble methods as an approach to enhance the consistency of the explanations provided in these scenarios. Leveraging insights from recent work on neural network loss landscapes and mode connectivity, we devise ensemble strategies to efficiently explore the underspecification set -- the set of models with performance variations resulting solely from changes in the random seed during training. Experiments on five benchmark financial datasets reveal that ensembling can yield significant improvements when it comes to explanation similarity, and demonstrate the potential of existing ensemble methods to explore the underspecification set efficiently. Our findings highlight the importance of considering model indeterminacy when interpreting explanations and showcase the effectiveness of ensembles in enhancing the reliability of explanations in machine learning.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Argumentative Ensembling for Robust Recourse under Model Multiplicity

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A bipolar-argumentation framework jointly selects models and counterfactuals so that returned counterfactuals are valid on all selected models, at the cost of majority voting.

Pith tools